The crime of drug trafficking is one of the types of crimes included in the category of crimes against the Public Health of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 and which are subject to severe penalties and sanctions. In the case of drug trafficking, evidence seized and collected from the beginning of the investigation to the end of the prosecution and defense are important.
Among the mistakes made with intensity in practice, technical follow-up made by law enforcement agencies, physical surveillance, raid or top search, residential or workplace searches, as soon as the police or gendarmerie find a sensitive balance on people, this results in the person being punished as a potential drug dealer and not as a drug user, as soon as they find a sensitive balance on the person He finds it in his house. Indeed, it is because of this misconception that the power to compensate and impossible victimizations arise.
The fact that a delicate balance has been placed on the person cannot be considered as evidence alone that this person is dealing drugs. In addition, it will have to be present in other criteria laid down by the Supreme Court jurisprudence. If the delicate scale alone will reveal that a person is dealing drugs, the presence of a knife on a person should arrest him for manslaughter rather than possession of a knife, which does not coincide with the right to a fair trial.
The mere possession of a sensitive balance does not indicate drug trafficking. As a matter of fact, people who commit the crime of possession for the purpose of using drugs often carry a delicate balance, because the drugs they take are expensive, can cause problems with their health in excess and even result in their death, and measure the amount of prohibited substances they receive.
As we have discussed in detail above, a delicate balance alone is not sufficient to convict a person of a drug trafficking crime, but if the perpetrator commits a drug trafficking crime, there must be concrete evidence of this crime. The text of the law that separates the crime of drug trafficking from the crime of possession for the purpose of using drugs is clear, and the Supreme Court has also sought definitive and concrete evidence on this issue in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. However, we would also like to point out that in practice, people who often use delicate scales in drug crimes are used in sales, while in drinking this number is small. Of course, the terms and conditions of each incident should be assessed separately and the determination of the crime in the light of all the evidence obtained should be made.
As stated in the Supreme Court case-law, situations in which the substance exceeds personal use are somewhat acceptable, but the fact that the drug is packaged separately, in addition to having a delicate balance, should not be considered sufficient for the crime of drug trafficking. In addition to this, it should not be ignored in other criteria established.
10th Criminal Division 2017/31 E. 2017/832 K.
Since the delicate balance seized at his residence on 23/12/2015 was contaminated with heroin, there was no evidence within the scope of the file that he sold heroin, was broken on the grounds that the determination of excess punishment in writing, without prejudice to which Article 188/4 of the TCK cannot be applied, is unlawful,
9th Criminal Division 2015/16426E. 2015/6242 K.
It was unanimously decided on August 8, 2015, to apply Article 188/4 of the TCK to determine the excess punishment for the defendants without seeing that there was insufficient evidence that the defendants sold heroin or cocaine, except for the sensitive scales contaminated with heroin and cocaine, which were seized at their joint residence.
Criminal General Assembly 2017/344E. 2020/140 K.
The defendant, who said that he used the heroin contaminated delicate scale seized at his residence by taking him to his home and sometimes to work, it is understood that the opening of a public case on the charge of possession of drugs to use it as of the criminal record was decided to be postponed, and the defendant, who argues that he used drugs, is a criminal element in the process despite being pursued for a period of more than three months drug trafficking during the period of any other interview and the decision to monitor by technical means, except for the interview of 28.09.2015, which may be considered possible In view of the fact that there is no evidence of any action that would arouse suspicion that he committed, there is no concrete evidence as to the extent of the file that the defendant possessed the heroin whose residue was detected on the scale “for a purpose other than use”, as well as the absence of any information on when and how the heroin contamination detected on the scale occurred, that it cannot be considered against the defendant and that the conditions for the application of paragraph 4 of Article 188 of the TCK do not exist about the defendant,